Was Lamarck totally wrong about the inheritance of acquired characteristics?

Answer 1

Yes, because he said that if you continually did something you could get that trait. So for example if I wanted to have a longer neck I would have to keep stretching it, which is wrong.

Answer 2

He was not totally wrong.

I am a neo-Lamarckian. This is speculation, and not good science, by the way, so take the rest of this paragraph with a grain of salt. Organisms have more genes than will be expressed in an individual's lifetime. Some of these genes are environmentally triggered. Sometimes, the switched on/off state of a gene will be inherited. Take a look at the life cycle of water fleas, Daphnia, and see what you think. Then consider that possibility that a gene that is switched off for several generations may have a slightly higher possibility of keeping a non-deleterious mutation.

Answer 3

yes lamarck was totally wrong about the inheritance of acquired characteristics. although some of his theories were somehow correct, this one was wrong. what can be inherited are the characteristics in the genes and not the acquired and changed characteristics during ones lifetime because these characteristics will not be in the gene pool but the ones one has inherited.

Answer 4

Because characteristics that are acquired are not encoded in an organism's genes. Since an organism can only passes its genes on to the next generation, it cannot pass on the acquired characteristics, no matter how beneficial they may be.

Answer 5

Lamarck was partially correct. Some traits are passed down from generation to generation. The big difference between Lamarck and Darwin Is that Darwin was all about evolution (which has no scientific basis in modern genetic research), which is being proven impossible by modern genetics research, and Lamarck was talking about adaption.
While evolution is absolutely impossible, we see adaption happening all around us.
As the environment changes, albeit very slowly, we can see the changes over time, in our record keeping. That is, physical changes. Most behaviors, however, are learned. While a wolf pup, or a lion cub, is born with the instinct to hunt, it has to be taught how to do it effectively. Or else starve to death.
In humans, the change behaviorally, is totally learned. Here in America, we see the degradation of human life, and the demise of the core family. Violence and sexual promiscuity In the adolescent years has skyrocketed, because no one teaches them that it's wrong. NO woman can teach a boy how to be a man, just as no man can teach a girl how to be a woman. It doesn't take a village to raise a child, but 2 opposite sex parents who are "true" adults.

Answer 6

Yes, he was wrong. Using a limb and developing it doesn't mean it gets passed down to future generations. Athletes' children are not born with stronger muscles.
Traits that are beneficial that have a competitive advantage get passed down, as these traits give an organism better survival and more of a chance to reproduce.

Answer 7

Lamark was wrong during the time he did his experiments. Now, however, with genetic material artificially transferred from one organism to another, "acquired" characteristics can be passed on to future generations.

Answer 8

lamarck said that continous use or disuse of any organ leads to its evolution accoringly. he explained this wid giraffe e.g.

we also experience this as our body has 2 vestegeal organs i.e. which our ancestors used and we dont

so I think he was not wrong completely but h incoplete research led to failure of his theory.

hope u agree

Answer 9

Pretty much completely, yup.

If you had a tattoo on your thigh, and your girlfriend had a tattoo on her thigh, the baby would not be born with one, right?